Monitoring Biofortification Program Performance and Potential for Impact: Indicators, Methods, and Learnings from the Commercialization of Biofortified Crops Program in Six Countries across Africa and Asia

Abstract

Background

Biofortification of staple crops is a food-based strategy to reduce the high global burden of micronutrient deficiencies. Monitoring program performance is essential to ensure biofortification programs have high potential for impact; however, few indicators and methods for doing so are publicly available.

Objective

We documented the set of standardized indicators and methods used to monitor the Commercialization of Biofortified Crops (CBC) program and reviewed their strengths and limitations.

Methods

Following the CBC program impact pathway, we identified and defined a set of indicators and corresponding methods. Country-level implementation teams contextualized and operationalized them to monitor 9 country-crop programs (i.e., high iron beans in Kenya and Tanzania, iron pearl millet in India, vitamin A maize in Nigeria and Tanzania, vitamin A cassava in Nigeria, zinc wheat in Pakistan and India, and zinc rice in Bangladesh) from 2020 to 2022.

Results

Twenty indicators were defined across domains of seed supply, production, availability, awareness, capacity development, advocacy, and consumption of biofortified foods. Data collection methods included external and internal document review, farmer household surveys, rapid market assessments, and modeling. The strengths of these methods were that they were rapid to conduct, low cost, and simple to use. For some methods, the limitations were the potentially reduced accuracy of some results due to the use of external data sources or secondary data inputs and unavailability of data.

Conclusions

The indicators and methods used in the CBC program are practical and cost effective for monitoring the implementation of biofortification programs because they generate the range of information necessary to understand how effectively a program is delivered and bolster plausibility arguments for attributing observed impacts to program activities. Further testing is needed to confirm their generalizability when applied to different contexts and paired with impact evaluations with the aim of producing publicly available global guidance documents.